Defamation Defeat: ABC's Liability Exposed in Former Commando Heston Casewordpress,defamation,liability,ABC,formercommando,Heston,case
Defamation Defeat: ABC's Liability Exposed in Former Commando Heston Case

Defamation Defeat: ABC’s Liability Exposed in Former Commando Heston Case

4 minutes, 6 seconds Read

ABC Loses Defamation Case Against Former Commando Heston Russell

Former commando Heston Russell has won his defamation case against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and has been awarded $390,000 by a federal court judge. The case centered around a series of articles published by the ABC linking Russell to alleged war crimes in Afghanistan in 2012. While the judge did not award aggravated damages, he did find that the ABC did not prove its reporting was in the public interest.

The Public Interest Defence in Defamation Suits

The Russell case is notable as the first full trial to test a new public interest defence in defamation suits. This defence, which came into force in July 2021, applies to publications concerning “an issue of public interest” where the defendant “reasonably believed that the publication of the matter was in the public interest”. In this case, the judge found that the ABC investigative journalist Mark Willacy, who authored the articles, had not established the public interest defence. While acknowledging that Willacy believed the publication was in the public interest, the judge felt that his belief was not reasonable in the circumstances. The judge also noted that the article published by the ABC “overstated the cogency of the evidence” and failed to consider a response from Russell.

The Impact of the Judgment

The judgment sets an important precedent for future defamation cases and raises questions about the responsibility of media organizations in reporting on matters of public interest. It highlights the need for journalists to thoroughly investigate claims and ensure a fair and balanced representation of the facts. The judge’s criticism of the ABC‘s defensive stance and “supercilious tone” in its media statements also serves as a reminder that media organizations should maintain professionalism and avoid engaging in a culture war.

Reflections on the Case

This case brings into focus the delicate balance between protecting individual reputations and safeguarding freedom of the press. While it is crucial to hold media organizations accountable for inaccurate reporting and potential harm to individuals, it is equally important to protect the public’s right to access information and engage in discussions about matters of public interest. The defamation laws must strike a balance that allows for the dissemination of information while preventing undue harm to individuals.

Advice for Media Organizations

Media organizations should be cautious when reporting on sensitive matters, particularly those involving allegations of misconduct or criminal activity. Thorough fact-checking, seeking responses from those involved, and providing balanced coverage are essential elements of responsible journalism. It is crucial for journalists and editors to adhere to professional standards and act in the public interest when reporting on contentious issues. By upholding these principles, media organizations can maintain public trust and avoid potential legal pitfalls.

Advice for Individuals

For individuals who believe they have been defamed, it is essential to consult with legal experts who specialize in defamation cases. Building a strong case requires gathering evidence, engaging in careful analysis of the published material, and seeking professional guidance throughout the legal process. It is important for individuals to assert their rights and reputation, but also to recognize that defamation cases can be lengthy and emotionally challenging. Seeking support from loved ones and professional networks can help individuals navigate the complexities of such cases.

In conclusion, the defamation case brought by former commando Heston Russell against the ABC highlights the complexities and challenges of balancing individual reputation with freedom of the press. The judgment serves as a reminder for media organizations to exercise caution, conduct thorough investigations, and maintain professionalism in their reporting. It also emphasizes the importance of responsible journalism and the need for individuals to seek legal guidance when faced with defamation cases. Ultimately, the case raises important philosophical questions about the role of the press in a democratic society and the delicate balance between individual rights and the public interest.


Defamation Defeat: ABC
<< photo by Thibault Mokuenko >>
The image is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual situation.

You might want to read !


G'day, mates! I'm Greg Buckley, and I've been reporting here in the land Down Under for the last 15 years. I'm all about sports and culture, so if there's a footy match or an art exhibit, you'll likely see me there. Let's give it a burl together, Australia!

Similar Posts